Thanks, the main reason is the origins of the kata as Itosu Sensei is referred to as creating these Kata to teach school Children, thus taking out all the lethal techniques and finishes from the Kata to make the kata child friendly.

I go to the source below as the author of this book (see below) I feel is very well sourced and from reading his works find that I can’t really disagree or discredit his works.

I think it’s just I feel that when one should be practicing less kata not more Kata, why practice Pinans 1-5 and Kushanku and Chinto and Bassai and Naihanchi and whichever kata were used to formulate the Pinans if one can just practice the original Kata anyway. I suppose the same techniques will be found in Bassai and Kushanku anyway

Thanks, the main reason is the origins of the kata as Itosu Sensei is referred to as creating these Kata to teach school Children, thus taking out all the lethal techniques and finishes from the Kata to make the kata child friendly.

I think it’s just I feel that when one should be practicing less kata not more Kata, why practice Pinans 1-5 and Kushanku and Chinto and Bassai and Naihanchi and whichever kata were used to formulate the Pinans if one can just practice the original Kata anyway.

What do we really know about the origins of the Pinan-/Heian-Gata? There are many theories how those five Kata came into existence. I am also not so sure that they were made for school children. As far as I know Itosu taught Karate at schools as early as the late 1890s. Those school club activities were not part of the regular school classes but a kind of extra curricular spare time activity for the children. He introduced the Pinan in 1904 and also taught other Kata in the schools even after he introduced the Pinan.

His changes to make Karate teachable for the masses are of a different kind of nature. After Japan opened up to the world they realized that they lack science and technology and they took those stuff from further developed countries like the UK (naval stuff), Germany (medicine and PE) and the USA (weapons).

For example the PE of the army was modelled after prussian army standards and found its way into the school system. Itosu felt that PE could be replaced by Karate and therefore he used the millitary approach with the help of some of his students (Yabu and Hanashiro who served in the military and had experienced those prussian methods) to form the "modern Karate".

So nowadays you line up, obey to orders (or someone who is counting the techniques for you) and movements got labeled so that everybody knows what movement is what. With those kind of coordination you have no problems to teach large crowds of children. It doesn't matter what Kata it is used, as long as you apply those new methods.

By the way, when the Pinan are for children why bother and teach them to adults too?

What do we really know about the origins of the Pinan-/Heian-Gata? ... [snip]

I am with you on what you say, I don't know why its taught to Adults as adults are a bit more able to adapt to sequences etc.

I suppose as you stated above it became regimented. And rather than teach students different techniques they just decided one rule for all.

I have 2 syllabus, one for adults and one for Children for this reason. the first 3 kata Taikyoku Kata (I created) are taught only to the chlidren, as the adults find it easier to "learn" the more "advanced Kata. The Basics are exactly the same just the Kata is differently presented to them

For me the Pinan/Heian Kata are the "comfort blanket" or the "Dummy/Soother" of Karate. Goju don't practice them and I am sure Naihanchi Kata (the orignal Beginner's Kata) and Goju Ryu's Gekisai Ichi etc are harder to learn than Pinan Nidan or Shodan etc. For me I took the video out Pinan Yondan and placed it into Chil Sung Ee Ro Hyung which is an Advanced Tang Soo Do Hyung but has similar movements.

Just to add for the OP, I did find the series very useful but in a different Kata in my training/practice.

Thanks, the main reason is the origins of the kata as Itosu Sensei is referred to as creating these Kata to teach school Children, thus taking out all the lethal techniques and finishes from the Kata to make the kata child friendly.

There’s no evidence to support that. Holger’s post above covers the key reasons as to why this is a doubtful proposition (i.e. the kata were also taught to adults, etc). There is also other stuff such as the comment about them by Funakoshi –who was a student of Itosu’s – in Karate-Do Kyohan:

“Having mastered these five forms, one can be confident that he is able to defend himself competently in most situations. The meaning of the name is to be taken in this context”.

So, as we can see, people close to Itosu saw them as a holistic form of physical self-protection. They were certainly not perceived as being impractical children’s kata.

As to why the meaning of the name should be taken in that context, my own theory – based on the different readings of the characters in Chinese and Japanese – can be found here:

For me the Pinan/Heian Kata are the "comfort blanket" or the "Dummy/Soother" of Karate.

That’s a strong statement. Whist it would be totally fair to say that you as an individual prefer not to make use of them for any given reason; I feel that you need to be careful of making a universal conclusion about that set of kata based on personal preference. There is certainly no evidence to support such a bold statement that I’m aware of. The key part of the sentence would therefore me, “To me”.

Putting your personal view of them to one side, are you aware of any historical source that would support the statement that they played the role “comfort blanket” or “dummy”? If not, I feel it’s important to draw a distinction between a subjective personal option (i.e. a feeling or personal unverified viewpoint), and a viewpoint that has objective external support (i.e. one that has evidence to back it up).

Black Tiger wrote:

I think it’s just I feel that when one should be practicing less kata not more Kata, why practice Pinans 1-5 and Kushanku and Chinto and Bassai and Naihanchi and whichever kata were used to formulate the Pinans if one can just practice the original Kata anyway. I suppose the same techniques will be found in Bassai and Kushanku anyway

Alternatively, the case could be made that practising Pinan 1 to 5 is “less kata” as they contain much of what is found in Kushanku, Passai, Chinto, etc but without the duplication. They are a good “summary” of much of what we find in the older kata, but are more succinct and shorter than the kata that inspired them. Maybe that was Itosu’s intention in creating them? Too many kata is not good so maybe we should stick to just the Pinan kata? Funakoshi did tell us, “having mastered these five forms, one can be confident that he is able to defend himself competently in most situations” so why bother with any others? I’m not saying you should take that view, but I am suggesting there is validity in it which others are free to realise.

Your way is your way, but that does not diminish the value of the Pinan series for others. A strong case can be made for them historically and practically. Personally I don’t think there is a “need” to practice the Pinans though as other kata can do the same job. However, choosing not to practise them does not mean they are invalid for others; especially when there is historical information and modern practise that would show them to be very functional.

To me there is no need to practice the Pinan if you practice Naihanchi, Kusanku, Passai etc, but there is no need to practice those if you practice what I view as their refined version in the Pinan. I don't confuse simplification with 'being for beginners' but rather see it as performance and safety enhancing refinement.

I teach my students the most important stuff first, and no matter how long they've been training with me they return to it lesson after lesson as it underpins everything they do.

For me the Pinan kata were Itosu's signature kata and should be viewed as a carefully designed alternative to other Okinawan forms. They were taught first not because they were for beginners, but because they were the most important, and in this regard they replaced Naihanchi - which had previously been taught first.

This as always has become an awesome thread, I do genuinely take on board what has been said, The Pinan Heian kata are the most practiced kata in the world.

So if these are just training kata, Ohtsuka Sensei states all Kata leads to Chinto, and its stated by others the most important kata in Shotokan is Kanku Dai as all kata lead from this. So taking these statements from leading Karateka, its hard not to dismiss the kata. I put ShuHaRi into this formula that one the kata is learnt and mastered it is discarded for the senior Kata in the different Ryu.

So if these are just training kata, Ohtsuka Sensei states all Kata leads to Chinto, and its stated by others the most important kata in Shotokan is Kanku Dai as all kata lead from this. So taking these statements from leading Karateka, its hard not to dismiss the kata. I put ShuHaRi into this formula that one the kata is learnt and mastered it is discarded for the senior Kata in the different Ryu.

I thnk it is worth pointing out that these are just opinions.

Just because Ohtsuka felt that all kata lead to Chinto doesn't mean they do. It just means that for him, in the manner he taught and used the kata, they did. Other good karateka will have other approaches. In the same vein I've never heard Kanku Dau described as the most important kata in Shotokan Karate - and as a former Shotokaner I'd dismiss that with barely a second thought, but it's how you look at things and perceive them that make them what they are, rather than what they actually are.

I think if you look at Shu Ha Ri as discarding in that sense you run the risk of actually becoming less effective.

So if these are just training kata, Ohtsuka Sensei states all Kata leads to Chinto, and its stated by others the most important kata in Shotokan is Kanku Dai as all kata lead from this. So taking these statements from leading Karateka, its hard not to dismiss the kata.

I don’t think Otuska said that? In his book “Karate Kata of Wado-Ryu” – which is something of a kata bible to Wado types – Shingo Ohgami presents a flow chart of technical difficulty that finishes with Chinto. It may be that you’re thinking of?

Regardless, that’s a long way from saying that all other kata are rendered redundant by Chinto. One is saying “here is the order all these kata should be learnt with regards to their technical difficulty”, but you are interpreting them as saying, “no other kata need be learnt but this one.” They are very different sentiments.

In both Wado and Shotokan the Pinan / Heian kata are included. Therefore, the creators, developers and practitioners of those systems obviously consider the Pinan / Heian kata valuable otherwise they would not be in the system.

Black Tiger wrote:

So taking these statements from leading Karateka, its hard not to dismiss the kata.

I would suggest you are misunderstanding their statements. They did not dismiss the Pinan / Heian kata; they are central to their systems. It would therefore seem obvious that they were not suggesting the kata be dismissed.

What kata we practise will always be a matter of how they fit within our wider training. So I would not say the Pinan kata are “must haves”. However, I would say that they are most certainly not “must drops” either; which is why I feel your remarks about them being “training kata”, “comfort blankets”, etc don’t hold water.

Saying you don’t wish to practise them is totally fine. I would however have to challenge the notion that no one should practise them due to them being inherently inferior in some way; which seems to be what you have stated.

There is no historical evidence to support the claims of inefficiently, but there is historical information that would refute such a claim (i.e. Funakoshi’s remarks, etc). There are also many people who make very effective use of them today; so the kata can be demonstrably shown to be effective and efficient. That does not mean you have to do them, but I you would accept that others find them to be valuable, effective and efficient; and every bit the equal of older forms? And that there is nothing inherently inferior about them?

All the best,

Iain

PS To the right I’ve put a photo of Shingo Ohgami and myself from a course we both taught at in 2007. He taught the Pinan kata in the morning, and I did my drills for them in the afternoon. A very impressive teacher and a very nice guy who I greatly enjoyed talking to. He has a hugely impressive knowledge of karate history.

Because a lot of what had been said in it has already been said in this thread, and because there was the potential for lots of duplication and “cross posting” I closed the above thread and linked it back to here.

It's funny but I've long held the view that many get strong despite kata, not because of it.

I think we'd all agree that a strong spirit and attention to detail are essentials for all really good karate-ka, so it's no leap of faith to assume such people would be formidable whether they did kata or not.

If such a person spent 100% of their training time finding then refining skills that work for them, it becomes irrelevant if a little guy on the other side of the world put those skills in a certain order of not.

As an aside, the other part of my life that was similar to 'kata' was Fire Service drills. On the training school, Ladder and Pump drills were performed by numbers until every crew member understood their role. Once the training school is over though those drills were rarely done on watches except for promotion tests. (Sound familiar?) Training shifted to 'scenario based' as experienced crew members understood completely how to use the kit, so set about using those skills to achieve good outcomes in bad situations. (Sound familiar?)

So I can see Ken's view on 'basic education' and can't for the life of me understand why people tear the Pinans apart looking for the Da Vinci Code.

Once they've done the job - i.e. built in the basic skills - I think training time is then best spent on what works for each of us as individuals, not simply repeating the same drills.

It's funny but I've long held the view that many get strong despite kata, not because of it.

The issue here is that “kata” can be very different things. It can be a meaningless dance which is never connected to combat, or it can be the core syllabus that informs the rest of training. So, depending what is meant by kata, I could agree with the above … but also find myself pointing to people who became skilled because of kata.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

I think we'd all agree that a strong spirit and attention to detail are essentials for all really good karate-ka, so it's no leap of faith to assume such people would be formidable whether they did kata or not.

I’d certainly agree that strong spirit and attention to detail are important. However, those attributes need to be realised through technique. For those who take a kata-centred view, the kata would be where those techniques are to be found.

While kata is the central hub, there is a need to practise bunkai with both complaint partners (drills) and noncompliant partners (sparring) with enough intensity to foster and promote the right mind set and the attributes discussed above.

The same is true regardless of where one “records” the wider methodology. We have to “get” the techniques from somewhere. Within karate, kata was traditionally the vehicle for passing the techniques from one generation to the next. If we get rid of kata, then we need another “repository”. And it’s certainly possible to do that.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

If such a person spent 100% of their training time finding then refining skills that work for them, it becomes irrelevant if a little guy on the other side of the world put those skills in a certain order of not.

Absolutely. However, we need to “find” those techniques from somewhere before we refine them. For those who are “kata centred”, it will be the kata where we primarily find the techniques that we then refine. Those who adopt another approach will still have a way of recording techniques, and they will probably have some form of supporting solo practise too. Kata provides both of those; and while it is certainly not the only way to include those things in training, it is one way. And if it’s not kata, then it will need to be a “kata alternative” or “kata substitute”.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

As an aside, the other part of my life that was similar to 'kata' was Fire Service drills. On the training school, Ladder and Pump drills were performed by numbers until every crew member understood their role. Once the training school is over though those drills were rarely done on watches except for promotion tests. (Sound familiar?) Training shifted to 'scenario based' as experienced crew members understood completely how to use the kit, so set about using those skills to achieve good outcomes in bad situations. (Sound familiar?)

I think that’s a good analogy, but I would point out one part that may be missed. The new recruits still did the drills. And the instructors of those new recruits knew the drills inside out so they could teach them. And all involved saw the value of those drills when used as part of a wider training methodology. With those additions, that is exactly how I see the role of kata within karate.

The observation and experience of conflict / fire lead to experienced people creating drills / kata to impart their hard-won lessons to the inexperienced. The drills / kata are then practised (bunkai) so that a core understanding is gained. Once that understanding is gained, then the practise must move on to scenario based training so the lessons learnt from the practise of the drills / bunkai can be applied in free-flowing live situations. While the experienced people will need the drills / kata less than they did initially, they understand their value and hence they are still practised for promotion and so that they can be taught to the subsequent generations. This is the approach to kata that I outline in this old article called, “The four stages of kata practise”:

Just doing the drills alone would be an impractical way to train Firemen. However, when you understand the drills as part of a wider process, then their value becomes clear. I would say that kata are exactly the same.

The drills were seen as a vital part of Fire Service training. If it was suggested that the drills should be entirely dropped, then we’d have people doing live scenarios with no idea of what actions they should take within those live scenarios. I think this is very similar to the development of martial skills through kata.

There is an inescapable need to have drills which impart the basic techniques, tactics and principles. For some that is kata / bunkai, for others it is an alternative set of drills … and you could argue that those alternative drills are still “kata” because they have the same function. The jab, cross in front of the mirrors in a boxing gym is just a two move kaka. Traditional kata are nothing more than many such short drills put end to end.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

So I can see Ken's view on 'basic education' and can't for the life of me understand why people tear the Pinans apart looking for the Da Vinci Code.

I see the Pinans are a record of core skills such as grips, locks, throws, strikes, etc. Nothing esoteric just “meat and potatoes” methods. The kata also provides a very useful and logical way of organising training (i.e. teaching and practise order). People need a “syllabus” to work from. For me, and those like me, the kata provide that syllabus.

Additionally, I find they provide a more holistic syllabus than I would have had if I had not chosen to study kata / bunkai in greater depth. When I look at kata, I don’t in any way feel I’m on some esoteric quest for the “holy grail”, but instead I find I am grateful for the simplistic logic that kata / bunkai provides. My students seem to like it too :-)

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

Once they've done the job - i.e. built in the basic skills - I think training time is then best spent on what works for each of us as individuals, not simply repeating the same drills.

Agreed, and I see this as part of the kata / bunkai process. Itosu – creator of the Pinan Series – told us much the same thing in 1908:

“Practice each of the techniques of karate repeatedly. Learn the explanations of every technique well, and decide when and in what manner to apply them when needed.”

In this statement we see the need to endlessly refine what we do; to learn what each of the motions of kata are for (bunkai); and then to decide – i.e. personal choice based on experience – when and how you would apply those methods and principles as an individual.

Kata for kata’s sake (i.e. with no progress through the other stages of practise) was something frowned upon in yesteryear, and I think it should be frowned upon today. As one example, in the 1930s Funakoshi wrote:

“Once a kata has been learned, it must be practiced repeatedly until it can be applied in an emergency, for knowledge of just the sequence of a form in Karate is useless.”

I think that’s true because it’s true; not just because Funakoshi said it :-) Over the years, kata as became disconnected from application and is largely practised as a martial “dead end”. That is not because of an inherent flaw in kata through, but a flaw in the way it is approached. Approach kata differently – as it was in the past and as it was intended to be – and I think it can be an extremely valuable part of karate. In my case, it is a vital part of my karate.

In my own practise and teaching, I have dropped all kinds of things I have found to be less than useful (i.e. one-step sparring, etc), but I have resolutely stuck to holding kata in high regard, not because of any nostalgic sentiment, or a desire to “search for hidden mysteries”, but because I find kata very useful and very effective.

I fully accept that there are many ways to “climb the mountain”, and there is certainly not a universal need for kata. I know of many people who are effective without it. However, it has also been my observation that there are many people who are effective with it and because of it. Not because of “kata” when it is approached as a “martial dead end”, but because of kata at the core of the wider process it was always supposed to be part of.

I'll have to say that for me it was very much in the 'meaningless but hard dance' category. Everything done in Kyokushin in the early years was done as hard as possible and the 'why?' was simply covered by "when you've done it enough, you'll understand" I never did.

Alongside that the BKK had a very extensive syllabus so the techniques at each level were well known and drilled accordingly. There was always a disconnect though. Some of the techniques drilled through the pain barrier were things that could never be sensibly used in the dojo or elsewhere. My father - being a bit handy himself - would watch me twisting my body repeatedly into strange moves and wander off muttering under his breath ...

But the saving grace for Kyokushin was after we'd done all the kihon and kata we'd spar as hard as was sensible (or beyond) and there were many very tough and capable people that came through those days. The dojo fighting was all-in, so the incentive to refine skills was always there. The better you got the more capable you were of inflicting pain whilst minimising damage to yourself.

So I respect Iain's work with kata and having met him I am impressed by his sincerity and ability. My comments above are not meant to be critical of kata based training, just looking to see how people fit it into the mix in a way I never experienced.

I'll have to say that for me it was very much in the 'meaningless but hard dance' category. Everything done in Kyokushin in the early years was done as hard as possible and the 'why?' was simply covered by "when you've done it enough, you'll understand" I never did.

I think that’s the case for most and why many of the criticisms levelled at kata – from within and without – are very valid. It all depends upon what is meant by “kata” and how that fits into the wider training method.

Dropping kata so that is does not distract from valuable training time can be an entirely valid way to go. Keeping it and making use of it in a structured way can also be a way to go. What I think many are right to question keeping it without an obvious and demonstrable reason for doing so.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

My father - being a bit handy himself - would watch me twisting my body repeatedly into strange moves and wander of muttering under his breath ...

I had a similar experience practising kata in my grandfather’s garden when I was around 13 years old. My mum worked nights so during the school holidays I’d spend a lot of time there so my mum could sleep in peace. He watched me do a kata and asked me what it was for. I gave him the standard answer of coordination, body control, etc. He said that was nonsense as all fighting methods were designed to one thing alone and that was harm the enemy. If kata could not do that, then it was nonsense too. He then showed me some of his favourites and regaled me with typically graphic (and wholly inappropriate) war stories. Never a dull moment :-)

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

But the saving grace for Kyokushin was after we'd done all the kihon and kata we'd spar as hard as was sensible (or beyond) and there were many very tough and capable people that came through those days. The dojo fighting was all-in, so the incentive to refine skills was always there. The better you got the more capable you were of inflicting pain whilst minimising damage to yourself.

There is certainly a huge benefit to having a dojo environment which encourages the “natural selection” of techniques. As in nature, remove the “predators” and all kinds of weird thing start to evolve. How many people in your dojo would believe in, let alone practise, no-touch knock-outs? ;-) This is one of the huge strengths of styles like Kyokushin, boxing, judo, mma, etc; the inefficient, and the totally ridiculous, are quickly weeded out.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

My comments above are not meant to be critical of kata based training, just looking to see how people fit it into the mix in a way I never experienced.

I think everything you said was valid. I would also add there is much to be critical of in the way kata is largely practised and perceived. In my post I endeavoured to propose how kata can a valid form of practise if, and only if, it is practised as part of a wider process.

I see the Pinan kata as a useful tool to practice all the fighting skills very similar to Shadow sparring which is done in many of the full contact styles like mine, Ashihara Karate, Enshin karate, Kyokushin Karate and Daito Juku. But only until one masters the other kata in one’s own arsenal.

If too much emphasis is put onto the kata it takes away the reasoning behind what the kata was for in the first place. Much of the practice is done against a willing Uke who always holds their other hand chambered by their hip/waist without even trying to prevent the Atemi’s actions (JWT I'm sure you've thought about this one too). With our kata there is the pretext of secondary strikes etc in the mix

Regards where I got my sources from which has been called into question.

I'd already stated this in my first post, although I'm not too sure how many have read this book or even ordered it

"I go to the source below as the author of this book (see below) I feel is very well sourced and from reading his works find that I can’t really disagree or discredit his works.

Also regards to the Shotokan part of my statements I looked at "Kata - the folk dances of Shotokan by Rob Redmond" a PDF/eBook I got - Page 67

"What is the most important kata in Shotokan Karate?

The most important kataby far is Kanku Dai. There are several reasons for this. Kanku Dai is the Roof Kata orParent Kata for the entire Shotokan database of kata. All of the kata are pointed tofrom various portions of Kanku Dai, and the Heian and Tekki kata index the various portions of Kanku Dai, expanding them with more detail and making the kata easier tolearn. Other karate styles have different roof kata, like Suparinpei for Goju Ryu, whichsupport the training methods and tactics of that style of karate."

If we take Daito Juku, quite an allround fighting system they have done away with all kata but just have a series of Kihon to work thorugh. And I know not one will say they're missing out if you've ver seen their fighters in action.

Ashihara and Enshin (Ninomiya Kancho being one of Ashihara Kancho’s senior Shihans and students prior to formulating Enshin Karate) have their own Jissen based Kata that were formulated from the Founder's experience in street fights and what worked and what didn't, both coming from "Traditional Backgrounds" Both practicing religiously the Pinan series of Kata etc.

I'm pretty stunned by Rob Redmond's comment there, and I disagree completely. While there are overlaps between Kushanku and some of Shotokan's core kata (the Kyohan kata), there is no evidence that would convince me that it is the root kata for them. Any counting or comparative analysis of the techniques, angles and combinations in all the kata (plus thier known lineages and variations) will reveal his statement to be nonsense. I can't even be polite about this - it's absurd.

I agree with you that a lot of kata practice is done against a partner that is too compliant. Personally my applications try to shut down the attacker so that he has no chance for the second shot, but initially (for safety) in my drills for those who use the Pinan Kata (which are Dan grade 'heritage' kata in my system, I teach my own kata for beginners) students drill against one shot attacks (usually HAOV with the non punching arm either holding them, pushing them, or poised for a hit) before moving to doing all drills against attempted windmilling or multiple strike/tactic adaptive combinations (again all HAOV as I'm not training for a competition format). So far as I'm concerned the Pinan/Heian kata are formulated for a determined attack dynamic (like all other kata), not a one shot static attack.

What kata we practise will always be a matter of how they fit within our wider training. So I would not say the Pinan kata are “must haves”. However, I would say that they are most certainly not “must drops” either; which is why I feel your remarks about them being “training kata”, “comfort blankets”, etc don’t hold water.

Saying you don’t wish to practise them is totally fine. I would however have to challenge the notion that no one should practise them due to them being inherently inferior in some way; which seems to be what you have stated.

There is no historical evidence to support the claims of inefficiently, but there is historical information that would refute such a claim (i.e. Funakoshi’s remarks, etc). There are also many people who make very effective use of them today; so the kata can be demonstrably shown to be effective and efficient. That does not mean you have to do them, but would you accept that others find them to be valuable, effective and efficient; and every bit the equal of older forms? And that there is nothing inherently inferior about them?

So what would help you make your case would be a valid source that supports your assertion that the Pinan kata are inherently inferior to others i.e. “training kata”, “comfort blankets”, “the dummy/soother of karate” etc.

Black Tiger wrote:

Regards where I got my sources from which has been called into question.

I'd already stated this in my first post, although I'm not too sure how many have read this book or even ordered it

This is modern book. If the author is making unsupported assertions, then the need for sources is simply moved back one step. What primary sources does the author quote?

If you have the book, you could also point people to these primary sources. That would be the right way to go, as opposed telling people to buy the book to find out, and from there go to the primary sources. If the author is simply giving his own opinion, then as interesting as it may be, it needs to be noted that it is just personal option and not something with any external support.

Whilst I’m not a karate historian, I’d like to think I’ve studied this area in reasonable depth. I am aware of nothing from the historical record – i.e. the people who were there at the time – that would support your assertions that the Pinan are inferior to the other kata. I am however aware of things that would contradict that (as mentioned in previous posts). So the reason I ask is because in making the assertions you have, you are suggesting there is information that I’m not aware of … and I want to be aware of it if it exists :-) I doubt it does exist, but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

To reiterate what I’ve said in my last few posts, I’m not saying you are wrong for not wishing to practise the Pinan kata. That’s totally your call. What I am questioning is the objective validity for the assertions you have made.

In short, are they based on anything other than personal opinion?

If not, then it would perhaps be better if they were expressed as personal opinion as opposed to statements of objective fact?

I'm pretty stunned by Rob Redmond's comment there, and I disagree completely. While there are overlaps between Kushanku and some of Shotokan's core kata (the Kyohan kata), there is no evidence that would convince me that it is the root kata for them. Any counting or comparative analysis of the techniques, angles and combinations in all the kata (plus their known lineages and variations) will reveal his statement to be nonsense.

There are obviously elements of Kushanku / Kanku-Dai that have found their way into the Pinan / Heians, but I agree that this is a step too far and I can see little evidence to support such a bold assertion.

JWT wrote:

I agree with you that a lot of kata practice is done against a partner that is too compliant … So far as I'm concerned the Pinan/Heian kata are formulated for a determined attack dynamic (like all other kata), not a one shot static attack.

This same problem can apply to all kata – if they are incorrectly approached – and does not point to anything inherently and specifically wrong with the Pinan kata. I also agree with what you are saying and I also have no problem utilising the Pinan kata techniques and principles in dynamic drills.

The analogy I like to use for this counter-argument, is that of using a paint brush to knock a nail in. It won’t work! But that does not being there is anything wrong with the paint brush, just that the person using it misunderstands its purpose. Use it for the right thing and it works fine.

So pointing to misuse of the Pinan kata to illustrates their faults is a logical fallacy (i.e. a straw man argument). Use them right and they work well. Use them wrongly, and that is the fault of the user, not the kata … and again the same can be said of any other kata.

Like yourself John, I share the view of the Pinan / Heian series are a potent system.

Dare I say this has become one of my favourite threads of all time on Iain's forum

As I'm on my Phone may I just add to Iain's last point

....or the Instructor of the User of the Kata, If the Kata was not fully taught, how is the student expected to learn all that is required or indeed pass on the valuable information required in the practice of it

I suppose its similar to the Bubishi was only passed to the Instructors most trusted students

Dare I say this has become one of my favourite threads of all time on Iain's forum

As I'm on my Phone may I just add to Iain's last point

....or the Instructor of the User of the Kata, If the Kata was not fully taught, how is the student expected to learn all that is required or indeed pass on the valuable information required in the practice of it

I suppose its similar to the Bubishi was only passed to the Instructors most trusted students

I was never taught any useful bunkai by my instructors. I can't say that I let it hold me back! :)

My position is that the the Itosu Pinan kata set were not originally intended to be a potent self protection system due to the main reason they were formed (for the school curriculum), and indeed the training structure that surrounded them.

However, and it is a BIG however, they most certainly can be a potent self protection system!

Personally I view Iain and John's work as pretty pionerring in this area, I would train under either of them in a heart beat, and if that meant Pinan only for material I would be very happy and able to look after myself.

Another thing, anyone talking about the original intent/methods surrounding the Itosu Pinan set should refer to the remaining Itosu lines, mostly found within the major Okinawan Kobayashi Shorin Ryu groups. Otherwise you are working with significantly altered material, information and indeed training methods.

My position is that the the Itosu Pinan kata set were not originally intended to be a potent self protection system due to the main reason they were formed (for the school curriculum), and indeed the training structure that surrounded them.

Do you have any reliable written evidence that this is the purpose for which they were formed? Motobu (by his own account) learned them from Itosu under a different name outside the school curriculum.

shoshinkanuk wrote:

Another thing, anyone talking about the original intent/methods surrounding the Itosu Pinan set should refer to the remaining Itosu lines, mostly found within the major Okinawan Kobayashi Shorin Ryu groups. Otherwise you are working with significantly altered material, information and indeed training methods.

I don't follow this logic.

The alteration of the forms between systems is window dressing to my eyes. A lot of the time it is the difference in legwork that is caused by different heights, or different technique heights due to different visualised sizes. There are simplifications and standardisations of certain differing movements, but any reasonable investigation and application accounts for these.

With regard to the original intent, what is left in 'the major Itosu lines' is verbal heresay passed (and often altered) from one teacher to the next, the diversity amongst which leads me to question the veracity of all. I perfer a more reasoned approach: looking at what Itosu wrote and was written by his immediate students, looking at when the forms were first taught and to whom, looking at the content of the forms in comparison to the other forms, looking at what they replaced (in terms of which kata were taught first) and how kata was taught prior to them, and then drawing conclusions.

We spoke before, no reliable written evidence im afraid, it's an area we have covered many times etc.

Re my logic, I do see (and fully admire) your reasoned approach, I just don't understand why people so interested in the Itosu Pinan kata set, don't train with people that are close to the lineage, and then go from there. (there are active Kobayashi groups in the UK, and have been for several years).

But then again, I think I do- function over traditon comes to mind. it's a solid positon to take.

Understandably Otosu may not have wanted to teach dangerous applications in schools, but would an able karate master really have taught waiving hands in the air with no practical meaning? What would have been the basis for him choosing the moves?

I think one reason for the opinion is that Shotokan’s Heian Shodan (the first one learned for many people) is on face value is quite simple and kihon like, but the other 4 have many deliberate and considered moves that in my opinion surely must be application centered (and presumably there is no argument over the many moves taken from older katas)